Hi,
On 06-07-15 09:02, Bernhard Nortmann wrote:
Hello Hans!
Am 05.07.2015 11:54, schrieb Hans de Goede:
This seems like a good idea to me, am I reading both the --help
and the code correctly that this only writes u-boot but does not
do the necessary fel exe 0x..... ? It seems to me that such a
command should also execute u-boot.
You're right - the "fel exe" is kept separate. This is done on purpose
to allow uploading other elements via FEL (e.g. boot script, kernel,
initrd). Execution of the bootloader always comes last.
Ah right, I guess that makes sense, but if this is not going to
be a fire and forget command, and people still need to run more
fel commands after it then I'm wondering it this is worth the trouble
at all.
What might be interesting is having a command where one can
specify a u-boot-sunxi-with-spl.bin + zImage + kernel-dtb + optional
ramdisk + "optional kernel cmdline" and then have the fel tool
boot all of that in one go, this will likely require some small
u-boot mods to execute a script from a pre-agreed upon location
when booting in FEL mode. Since the fel tool already patches the
eGON boot0 magic, we could use a different marker here to tell
u-boot that we are doing a full auto boot and that it should
execute the scr loaded to the pre agreed upon address. That scr
can then contain the kernel cmdline + load addresses, etc.
for the kernel, dtb and initrd.
Other then that this looks good to me any reason this is an RFC?
I would be happy to merge this even with the TODO in place.
I just wanted further input / some more opinions on it, as I'm
not completely sure it would be the best way to achieve this.
For example, I originally intended to extend the existing "spl"
command with a load address (to tell it to transfer the u-boot
part to that destination). But then I realized that the image
already contains a target address, and that "fel spl" would still
have a purpose of its own (when used with u-boot-spl.bin).
Would we want more flexibility by allowing an optional (dest)
address specification? I'd have gone straight for that, but
unfortunately argument parsing / handling in fel.c isn't too
flexible...
See above since the user still needs to do the exec I wonder
what the value is in saving the user the single extra
fel write for the u-boot-dtb.bin file. I think having a full
auto mode as described above would be better.
Regards,
Hans
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
